Take them to CostCo. They digitized some movies I had taken in Russia in 1997 and they looked great.

My experience is they never think creatively. They can come up with one solution and if that does not fly for some reason, they are toast.
I have worked with a few who were okay but with so many who were just not that bright.

Finally, you need to watch your correct use of the English language, guy. When I saw "rote" instead of the correct "wrote", it was hard to take your ideas seriously. Just sayin'...

Damn well said.

I have yet to meet a unionized engineer.
When I worked for Bloomberg in New York City, they were constantly firing international employees for theft of intellectual property. Not sure where that charge came from.
Sounds to me that your whole point is that some VC told you how to think. H-1B visa holders are only popular with people like CEOs and VC who really have no experience in the field. Working engineers know that they are wildly overrated. That's why so many companies have abandoned the use of H-1B visa holders. It is a practice valued by people who really don't have any experience in the field. They think it's a good value but in fact it's a myth. Tata produces terrible engineers. They pretend they're going to send experienced engineers here but the people that companies actually get are unexperienced and come here expecting to be trained by US engineers. Then, they produce terrible work and US engineers have to silently rewrite it. I say "silently" because management doesn't want to hear that fact because they want to push the fiction that they're saving money. So, then, the cycle continues where management believes it's saving money while domestic engineers have to actually rewrite the crappy code produced by Tata. I have seen this play out in several companies, especially ones located in NYC.

Obviously someone does not know that we in America have a law called the Sherman Anti-Trust Act that has been on the books for over 100 years. Please take your Ayn Rand fantasies into some right wing hothouse where you belong, "Lucky One". Or better yet: Pah-shole na hooey.

Clearly a lie motivated by your politics. The entire case would not exist without the attorneys working on it for contigency fees. Then, at worst, the attorneys get 1/3. That means the class-action defendents will get 2/3rds of whatever is recovered. Then, going forward, every engineer in the United States will benefit in perpetuity by the increased salaries that are an absolute result of this.
If any companies had wanted to expatriate, they would have already done so. They stay in an expensive place such as Silicon Valley precisely because of the quality of the talent there.

Many US companies have tried moving overseas, only to see that it's ineffective. Offshoring is not new. If it were the panacea that you're implying, every single company would have already done it--but that hasn't happened. For the same reason, most startups occur in the United States. You are just pushing a political opinion that is not based on any facts or reality.

Nice try, Jagdish

It's a false name in either case--what does it matter?

I will leave it to the jury whether or not you're a crackpot based on your other comments, Lonnie. But you fail here to note that a company like Swiss RE bases its entire business on measuring and appraising risk. Second, they do indeed have data they use to assess the change in risk they face--and that is the history of claims they have been paying. Swiss RE and other re-insurance companies such a Lloyds of London now require insurance companies they back to take into account the impact of climate change. The point of this is not to construe their interest as some scientific absolute on the existence of antropogenic climate change--it is merely to combat the notion that is put forward by the non-scientific climate change deniers like you who want to act like nothing strange at all is happening to the climate. The reality that these large corporations whose lifeblood is assessing risks on pain of going out of business, do indeed take the risk of a worldwide calamity driven by climate change serious as a heart attack. Nothing further can be inferred from their interest other than their serious and factual opinions that climate change remains a true and actual risk that our planet faces.

But American Express and Discover do not.

"Jane"--Lonnie--you're a crackpot.
None of your canards explain why Swiss RE, a non-American company and huge re-insurer, also has concluded that Greenhouse Warming is a significant recognised risk that they are not ignoring. To wit, from the MIT article: "Swiss Re identified climate change as an emerging risk more than 20 years ago, long before most financial and insurance companies -- or most businesses in general. A vocal advocate of mitigation strategies, climate change is now a significant component of the company’s long-term risk management strategy."
Swiss RE.
Headquarters: Zürich, Switzerland

• Climate Change Causes Insurers to Rethink Price of Risk After Hurricane Sandy
• Insuring a Better Future: Sustainability at Swiss Re

Despite the shorter longevity of methane in the atmosphere, the danger it poses for runaway greenhouse warming well overwelms any benefit from its short lifespan, as is well recognised, such as its triggering of ground-level ozone, yet another potent greenhouse gas. As you note, fracking is yet another voluminous source of methane, so its short lifespan in the atmosphere is no comfort. In short, it's a runaway effect because CO2 releases lead to Methane releases, which lead to more and more Methane release, which dominoes to other potent greenhouse gases. Textbook runaway warming. So, what was your objection?

• Methane and the risk of runaway global warming
• BBC on Runaway Methane Warming
• Methane Causes Vicious Cycle in Global Warming
• Methane's Impacts on Climate Change May Be Twice Previous Estimates
• Fracking Would Emit Large Quantities of Greenhouse Gases

You're referring to Blue Cross, which is a health insurer. Health insurance is regulated differently than property and casualty insurance, which is the insurance that is most affected by global warming. (I have professional experience with both types). However, through their investment portfolios, both types of insurance company are affected primarily by the damage to coastal real estate that these companies--and the re-insurers--own as investment vehicles. And, as I'm sure you know, most of the premium income taken in by these companies is used for investments.
Finally, you call global warming a "convenient excuse" while the insurance companies, their underwriters and the actuaries for the big re-insurers call it a "recognised risk". There is a difference as, your appelation implies the risk is ficticious while these insurance companies do not consider it a fictional risk--which was my original point.

Good!
[I guess the I misunderstood it when you wrote: "You have no clue about anything you are talking about." :) ]